But you did not answer the question:You think this a balanced article?

Perhaps you did not notice that the article I linked was a 2011 article which would appear to have information not available in a book that is published in 2000.As for the contents of the article, I am taking it as it is until someone else who thinks it is unbalanced refutes it with some other pieces of evidence/data/information.

Sherab wrote:... the article I linked was a 2011 article which would appear to have information not available in a book that is published in 2000.

Absolutely.

Sherab wrote:As for the contents of the article, I am taking it as it is until someone else who thinks it is unbalanced refutes it with some other pieces of evidence/data/information.

I can't see any lack of balance there. Its basic argument is clear and seems absolutely fair and reasonable in the light of the evidence presented: that a definitive 'pure' 'original' canon does not exist now, that the idea of (re)constructing one is foredoomed to failure, and that we must therefore learn to live with multiplicity and uncertainty.What elements of it do you object to, Tilt?

Just a note: As I am slowly reading through the essay in question, Whose Buddhism is Truest?, outside of maybe some comments about the very most recent finds concerning the Gandhari texts, there is really nothing in this essay that has not been around for quite sometime. In these terms, Williams' book is not out of date.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

It's been quite a while since I read the article, but if I remember correctly the author seems to imply that since there were multiple streams of transmission of the early discourses evolving into different redactions in different Indic languages, that therefore, the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras should be considered just as ancient as the Gāndhārī and other Indic language discourses that are similar in style and content to the Pāli discourses. But this is too much of a leap. All of the earliest discourses (Pāli, Gāndhārī, etc.) differ considerably in both style and content from the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras. For these and other reasons, the latter simply can't be placed in the mouth of the historical samaṇa Gotama.

Buddhist tradition maintains that after his awakening, the Buddha taught for some 45 years throughout eastern India. Among his disciples were a few, including his attendant Ananda, who had highly trained memories and could repeat his words verbatim. . . . Every school of Buddhism stakes its authority, and indeed its very identity, on its historical connection to this original first canon. Buddhists of all traditions have imagined that our texts tumble from the First Council into our own hands whole and complete—pristine—unshaped by human agency in their journey through time. P 2

This is pretty much the traditional point of view; however, this has been questioned by scholars for decades.

If our texts don’t faithfully preserve the actual words of the Buddha in this way, we might think, how could they be reliable? Isn’t that what we base our faith on? P 2

And that can be a very scary question for some of us.

But as we’re about to see, history works otherwise. And having a view more in line with the facts here frees us from chauvinist views and gives us grounds for respecting differences between and within diverse Buddhist schools. P. 2

I wonder who this essay is really directed at.

It was a mistake to assume that the foundation of Buddhist textual tradition was singular, that if you followed the genealogical branches back far enough into the past they would eventually converge. P. 3

But in a real sense, it has to be singular if there were a person that we call the Buddha.

Because early Buddhism was an oral tradition, tracking any Buddhist text back in time is like following a trail of bread crumbs that ends abruptly. So for us looking to the past, a critical moment in history occurred when Buddhists started writing down their texts rather than transmitting them orally. That is when the Buddha’s words moved into a more enduring form. P.4

She is way overstating this. The fact that we have two complete canons and partial bits of others, and the fact that there are strong correspondences among these canons, points to a commonality in the source material. It must be kept in mind that the canon(s) translated into Chinese was separated by considerable time and distance from that of the Pali. We need not overplay or underplay this. A comparison of the various canons is not going to give us an ur-canon, but it will show that the monastics did take seriously the need to preserve the texts and points to a commonality.

If we were looking for a single ancestral root of all Buddhist canons, the moment the teachings got written down would be the first possible point in time we could find their physical record. P. 4

The various canons were well separated by time and distance before the need for writing.

We now know that if there ever was a point of convergence in the Buddhist family tree—the missing link, the single original and authentic Buddhist canon—it is physically lost in the era of oral transmission. We have not yet found, and probably will not ever find, evidence for it. P. 5

I find this attempt at dismissing a “point of convergence” interesting. Again, if there was “the Buddha” who taught, there is that point of convergence. Will we be able to get to it directly? No, but what we can get is a pointing towards it.

But even more significant is what we have found: that is, difference. These scrolls are incontrovertible proof that as early as the first century B.C.E., there was another significant living Buddhist tradition in a separate region of India and in an entirely different language from the tradition preserved in Pali. P. 5

There is not a thing surprising in this.

[Colette] Cox suggests that “rather than asking the question what single language did the Buddha use and what represents the earliest version of his teachings, we might have to accept that from the very beginning there were various accounts of his teachings, different sutras, and different versions of sutras transmitted in different areas. At the very beginning we might have a number of different sources, all of whom represent or claim to represent the teaching of the Buddha.” P. 5

We would not have that at the very beginning, but we would have it very quickly after the death of the Buddha as the various groups of Buddhist became separated by time and distance.

Clearly, Buddhist monks of different language traditions in early India were in contact, and they traded ideas and influenced each other in complex ways. P. 5

Yes and no. That is a bit too glib.

If a multiplicity of traditions is what we have now, and as far as the record goes back in time, multiplicity is what we’ve always had, maybe we’re not finding a single root Buddhism because there wasn’t one in the first place. Ps. 5-6

No; however, the multiplicity did happen soon after the death of the Buddha.

First of all, there are certain practical difficulties of oral transmission in a time before digital recording. How could 500 monks have agreed on 45 years of the Buddha’s words? P. 6

An interesting question, which seems to assume that the texts/suttas were compiled after the Buddha’s death. There is enough evidence within the suttas themselves that points to the teachings being organized and memorized during the Buddha’s lifetime, which seems only reasonable.

The Buddhist canons as they exist today are the products of historical contingencies. They resound with the many voices that have shaped them through time. But orthodoxy requires the opposite, a wall you can’t put your fist through: singular, unchanging, findable truth. Buddhism’s textual root wasn’t singular, and it wasn’t unchanging. As it turns out, it wasn’t so findable, either. P. 7

It is not going to be finable as a written document, but does it have to be? And yes, the canons do show signs of being handled. There is no reason to deny it.

believe their tradition possesses or other traditions lack: not a “one-of-many-versions” canon but “the real one.” P. 2

An important point. The Pali Canon is one among many. Its virtue is that it is preserved in an Indic language close to what the Buddha likely spoke, but it is, indeed, one among at a couple of others.

Mahayana and mainstream Buddhist sutras were recovered together and presumably buried together. Harrison believes that the monks who engaged in Mahayana practices were most likely Vinaya-observing; they likely lived in monasteries side by side practitioners of more mainstream Buddhism. P. 8

Old information.

These first-century Mahayana texts in the new collections are already highly developed in terms of narrative complexity and Mahayana doctrine.

Bit of an exaggeration.

They couldn’t be the first Mahayana sutras, Harrison says. “The earlier stages of the Mahayana go far back. The Mahayana has longer roots and older roots than we thought before.” (Not roots all the way back to the Buddha, though—Harrison agrees with the general scholarly consensus that the Mahayana developed after the Buddha.) Nonetheless, he says, “Probably lying behind these Mahayana texts there are others with much stronger mainstream coloration, where it is not so easy to tell whether it’s Mahayana or Shravakayana.” P. 8

The seeds of the bodhisattva notion were planted by the Mainstream Buddhists who did “Buddha-ology” after the Buddha’s death.

During this period of early Buddhism there were many different strands of practice and trends of thought that were not yet linked. “We could have the Perfection of Wisdom strand and a Pure Land strand and a worship of the Buddha strand, and all sorts of things going on,” Harrison remarks. Only later did these threads coalesce into what we now consider “the Mahayana.” P. 9

This is a bit misleading. “We could have what would become the perfection of Wisdom strand, etc.” probably starting about a century or so after the Buddha’s death, but even that is conjecture.

Harrison suggested we consider a braided river as a better metaphor than a tree for the historical development of Buddhist traditions. A braided river has a number of strands that fan out and reunite. “Its origin is not one spring, but a marsh or a network of small feeder streams,” he told me. According to this model, the Mahayana and Vajrayana “are merely downstream in the onward flow of creativity. They are activities similar in nature to early Buddhism—not radically different. And a lot of current in their channels has come all the way from the headwaters,” he says. “Whether it all has the single taste of liberation is another question.” In such a picture of textual transmission—fluid, dynamic, and intermingled—where and how could one stake a territorial claim? Sectarian posturing is based on having the actual words of the Buddha—complete, stable, unmediated, and self-contained. Once all one can have is a complex of versions of the Buddha‟s words—partial, changing, shaped, and commingled with other versions—in what sense would it be authoritative if one;s own version was bottled upstream or down? P. 9

This does not do justice the richness and complexity of the development of the various Buddhist lines of thought.

So, those who liked Linda Heuman’s essay, what is it point?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

It's been quite a while since I read the article, but if I remember correctly the author seems to imply that since there were multiple streams of transmission of the early discourses evolving into different redactions in different Indic languages, that therefore, the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras should be considered just as ancient as the Gāndhārī and other Indic language discourses that are similar in style and content to the Pāli discourses. But this is too much of a leap. All of the earliest discourses (Pāli, Gāndhārī, etc.) differ considerably in both style and content from the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras. For these and other reasons, the latter simply can't be placed in the mouth of the historical samaṇa Gotama.

She is rather vague on this point, which is a way of kind of suggesting that the Mahayana texts could be considered to have the same standing as the Mainstream canons, especially the Pali Canon.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:So, those who liked Linda Heuman’s essay, what is it point?

As I said before, that we must learn to live with multiplicity and uncertainty.Secondarily, that it undercuts (to a degree) anyone playing divisive us/them games. More broadly ...• I come to all of this from a background in historical musicology which has had similar problems with oral/written material and assessing interactions between 'schools', and has become less certain of its knowledge as that knowledge increases; also (more recently) from evolutionary biology, in which the 'tree' model is looking less and less like the way the living world really works.

• Also, science in general takes it for granted that succeeding generations will improve on the work of the innovators, and that this is a Good Thing, as contrasted with religion in general which says that succeeding generations cannot possibly improve on the innovators and the best they can do is preserve the teachings as faithfully as possible.Is Buddhism faith-based, and therefore tied to religious conservatism, or knowledge based, and therefore open to development? That question has troubled me somewhat for years, and the 'Mahayana split' raises it again: if it is faith-based, we do need a (single, definitive) canon; if it is knowledge-based, we don't need a single source but the downstream/upstream model is still useful.

tiltbillings wrote:So, those who liked Linda Heuman’s essay, what is it point?

As I said before, that we must learn to live with multiplicity and uncertainty.

We need to live with insecurity, but this essay really did not do justice to the whole really interesting area of early Buddhism and the question of the early texts, not to mention the formation of early Mahayana. It kind of sucked.

Secondarily, that it undercuts (to a degree) anyone playing divisive us/them games.

I don't think she really touches it.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Secondarily, that it undercuts (to a degree) anyone playing divisive us/them games.

I don't think she really touches it.

She doesn't, but she still undercuts it.

Kim

It seemed to me she played that very game:

And having a view more in line with the facts here frees us from chauvinist views and gives us grounds for respecting differences between and within diverse Buddhist schools.

Chauvinist views? What are these views; what does the author have in mind here? tilt already mentioned this, but it's an interesting presence in the article that points to an intriguing unspoken premise. It's basically the thesis statement.

We‟re not abandoning the basis for our faith; we‟re confirming it. And in so doing, we open up the possibility to truly appreciate different Buddhist traditions as equal members of our Buddhist family.

Different but equal, the clarion cry of the New Age. Yet earlier:

(Not roots all the way back to the Buddha, though — Harrison agrees with the general scholarly consensus that the Mahayana developed after the Buddha.)

So we're having our cake, and eating it too, it seems.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

We‟re not abandoning the basis for our faith; we‟re confirming it. And in so doing, we open up the possibility to truly appreciate different Buddhist traditions as equal members of our Buddhist family.

Different but equal, the clarion cry of the New Age. Yet earlier:

(Not roots all the way back to the Buddha, though — Harrison agrees with the general scholarly consensus that the Mahayana developed after the Buddha.)

So we're having our cake, and eating it too, it seems.

I think the braided-river, downstream-upstream model allows for that. It is not so wishy-washy, warm-and-fuzzy relativistic as to say all traditions are equal but it not so implicitly absolutist as the tree model.And it does seem to accurately reflect the sources, which is always a good idea when you're choosing a model.

I'm fairly certain it doesn't, since it doesn't allow Mahayana texts to map onto the earliest available strata. This matters, because while you said

Kim O'Hara wrote:It is not so wishy-washy, warm-and-fuzzy relativistic as to say all traditions are equal

this is, in fact, precisely where the author goes with it, and it's demonstrably false.

Kim O'Hara wrote:but it not so implicitly absolutist as the tree model.

...and I'm not sure what is meant by "absolutist" here. In any event, despite the nigh-impossibility of saying which texts (/phrases?) are 'absolutely' Buddhavacana, we can indeed say that certain texts are 'absolutely' not.

In the end it seems up to personal preference whether or not this fact is treated as an important one.

(...and what about this "chauvinism" bit, anyway?)

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

My gut feeling happens to concur with the opinion of most scholars (and of course, most people here on DW), ie that the Pali Canon is most likely to be the most accurate representation of what the historical Buddha actually taught. But one good thing about this religion / path / way, is that the founder, to the best of our knowledge, intended for us to always test the Teachings against our own experience, and that is ultimately how we will end up proving them, one way or the other. If it's true, it will stand up to scrutiny and examination...

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

I'm fairly certain it doesn't, since it doesn't allow Mahayana texts to map onto the earliest available strata. This matters, because while you said

Kim O'Hara wrote:It is not so wishy-washy, warm-and-fuzzy relativistic as to say all traditions are equal

this is, in fact, precisely where the author goes with it, and it's demonstrably false.

Kim O'Hara wrote:but it not so implicitly absolutist as the tree model.

...and I'm not sure what is meant by "absolutist" here. In any event, despite the nigh-impossibility of saying which texts (/phrases?) are 'absolutely' Buddhavacana, we can indeed say that certain texts are 'absolutely' not.

In the end it seems up to personal preference whether or not this fact is treated as an important one.

(...and what about this "chauvinism" bit, anyway?)

Hello, Dave (and all),I'm comfortable with most of what (I think) Heuman said, for reasons (I think) I have mostly given.Quotes and attributions and viewpoints are getting too tangled here for me to say much more without re-reading the article and a fair percentage of the thread, which I haven't got time for at the moment. I may be mentally attributing some of Heuman's views to her sources and vice versa, and I know I didn't use the word 'chauvinist' although it seems that you think I did. (Small plea: attributions on quotes? Please?) Never mind.

manasikara wrote:My gut feeling happens to concur with the opinion of most scholars (and of course, most people here on DW), ie that the Pali Canon is most likely to be the most accurate representation of what the historical Buddha actually taught. But one good thing about this religion / path / way, is that the founder, to the best of our knowledge, intended for us to always test the Teachings against our own experience, and that is ultimately how we will end up proving them, one way or the other. If it's true, it will stand up to scrutiny and examination...

I've been told that Mahayana was a schism and those responsible are burning in the worst of hells. I've been told that Mahayana is invented by renegade monks drunk on samadhi or worse. That it is a forgery, a heresy and a perversion of the Buddha's teachings (the last instance of this sort of thing was not too long ago on this forum). And of course I've been told that Mahayana is arrogant, supremacist and supercessionist. All of these I have heard from multiple sources both in fora and "meatspace".

It probably doesn't need saying that when one's faith in Dharma is not yet firmly established, such sentiments hurt and undermine everything one has managed to achieve in practice.

What I see as a practitioner are a collection of wisdom teachings that in practice have helped open my eyes a little, develop more clarity, patience and compassion in dealing with myself and others. In practical terms I haven't found anything that contradicts what I have learned in the Suttas although there are scholarly differences that may be relevant to other people or at other stages. The Bodhisattva orientation is perhaps one exception.

I should perhaps add that the later genesis of all Mahayana Sutras is not commonly accepted in Mahayana. I don't think my teacher who is a monastic of many years particularly minds one way or another, but Red Pine, who is perhaps the greatest of the translators of Chinese Mahayana literature (though I will defer to Ven Huifeng on that judgment) does not hold much stock by the current academic consensus on this matter. I am no expert and so I don't hold to a view here.

But to me if the Buddha's teachings are worthwhile then people have become liberated in the last 2500 years and these people could have elaborated on his teachings and adapted them to their culture and times. Modern Theravada teachers do that too and to me it is nothing but our Judeo-Christian bias that is responsible for the distaste many feel for such "innovations." Ajahn Sumedho's Sound of Silence meditation springs to mind and of course the never-ending debate about the Burmese vipassana. Whatever helps you get to the other shore, I say, and we are all different. Some may need only the Pali Suttas but for others different methods work best. In any case if you have not yet crossed to the other shore, what makes you qualified to say it must be "nothing but this"?

Dan74 wrote:Some may need only the Pali Suttas but for others different methods work best. In any case if you have not yet crossed to the other shore, what makes you qualified to say it must be "nothing but this"?

Turning that on it's head though, if you haven't "crossed to the other shore" yourself, how do you know that the teachings of subsequent teachers are in fact liberative? How do you know they just don't make you "feel good" - something not to be derided of course, but not something that leads out of samsara.

What criteria could one apply to determine the liberative powers of a particular teaching, when one is not liberated by it?

I'm not saying the Buddha's teaching of the suttas are "nothing but this", but on what grounds does one legitimately say "this too" of a particular teaching, when they do not actually know it to be so? The more evolved a teaching becomes from what the Buddha taught, the more layers of faith you require that each individual along the path in his dispensation was in fact liberated by these innovations, and that they are not just saying so, or claiming benefit from these innovations, out of deference to a teacher, tradition, nation, culture or guru.

This is exactly to the point, retro. What criteria do we use? I think there are several given in the Pali scriptures and you would know them well.

Rather than relying on historical authenticity, I rely on self-assessment, assessment by my fellow practitioners and my teacher.

Self-assessment is primarily to do with conduct particularly with respect to the Paramitas. It is also to do with a sense of being mindful and present (which is included in the Paramitas anyway).

Assessment by my fellow practitioners is possible because I have a number of close friends who are also practitioners (both Mahayana and Theravada) and we try to be open and frank with each other. Besides even without words I can sense when I go off track - good friends (kalyanamitras) are like mirrors. Another aspect is a site like this where I learn about another tradition and critically examine my own on this light and get feedback from more experienced members.

Finally and perhaps most importantly for me is assessment by my teacher. Which of course if one supposes that the said teacher herself has gone wrong is not worth much. Well looking at my teacher and also at her lineage of teachers, I see precisely the values that the Buddha held up for the wise. I also see the focus of her tradition as being perfectly aligned to the Buddha's mission in Pali Suttas, ie awakening.

My teacher is an even clearer and greater mirror than my friends in some respects. It is not an easy practice - one would rather turn away at times, but here we are!

In the final analysis, I guess we need a measure of trust, both in our innate capacity to tell what is wholesome from what is unwholesome and trust in wise people past and present. Between these trusts, moderated as they are with common sense and a commitment to truth, practice can blossom.